I use the start menu to lauch almost all my apps, and not by typing. It helps keep my desktop and taskbar clean
Type is faster than hunting with a mouse and losing your flyout because you drifted too far from one side to the other. Make the computer do the searching, not you.
On a different note, why have a clean taskbar? I know I started out thinking the same in Win7, but then I challenged myself on that. I took note of which apps were open 90% of the time, taking up space on the taskbar anyway, and decided to pin them. Now they're easier to launch and it's not like the icons aren't taking up space that they weren't taking up anyway.
What does Windows 8 do for any user without a touchscreen that Windows 7 won't?
Secure Boot. Seriously, if you're worried about someone physically compromising your systems and installing keyloggers, etc. having Secure Boot is a great feature that previous versions of Windows don't have.
I don't know who came up with it or why but it sucks.
Usability experts did. They heard about people complaining about all of the little distractions and lost productivity that was coming from the computing experience and did studies about it. They discovered that people are more productive with only one or two programs showing on the screen at a time. OS creators read the studies and found them to be accurate; so they've implemented what the studies have found. The problem now is that even if we're more productive with one or two windows we either a) don't feel like we're more productive b) don't like it anyway c) like all of the little distractions that make us less productive.
There are times in Windows 8 when I'm using the Metro apps, and it feels so close to being on-par productive, but it's not quite there. If they could somehow enforce that all text written to the screen must be copy/pasteable the Metro world might be feasible; but it's not there yet.
Why is it okay for the US to sponsor cyber attacks, but not the Iranians? If it is an act of war, then did Congress authorize the US act of war?
The difference is that the US was trying to prevent Iran from getting ahold of weapons/technology that it shouldn't have. Iran is out to destroy existing infrastructure. So the difference is scale. The US says "we'll try to stop X from happening", and Iran says "I'm a bull in a china shop trying to destroy everything".
If corporations are using the Tax Law in unintended ways, change the law. The rest of us can complain and moan about how the laws are broken. You can actually do something about it. Shaming somebody into not playing by the rules so well, ain't gonna work. If even you get Apple to bring over all of their revenue, and have it taxed without a single loophole/write off, the next corporation will just waltz in and exhibit the bad behavior that you don't like.
then open-sourcing the code might be a nice goodwill gesture.
That also might make it very easy for malware writers to be able to find security holes in it. On the other hand, would malware writers even bother to target something that has such low marketshare?
The IM world is dropping compatibility like flies. What are these companies trying to do?
They're trying to get you to use a client that they can show advertisements on. If you use a client that doesn't provide an ROI for them, why would they want offer up their electricity, spinning disks and the bandwidth of their service to you?
Amazon just hires local surfs to peddle bicycles that power belt-driven fans. When a surf drops, they simply hustle them out and replace them with another. Communities are so glad to have such a huge employer, they look the other way...
Wouldn't those workers be replaced by labor cost saving robots?
Who said that art and math are mutually exclusive, and why would you believe a person who said that? What part of playing back a video on Youtube do you think is not mathematics at work? Elaborate on your point.
That's kind of the point of patent\copyright laws; Math: not patentable, Art: is patentable.
And then there's my inherent skepticism about the value payoff relative to the level of complexity added, as well as asking isn't that why we have layer 3 protocols? To define networks above and beyond their layer 2 memberships?
The power of a card as a visual-organization metaphor according to Matias Duarte (lead designer of Android), is that 'it makes very clear the atomic unity of things; it's still flexible while creating a kind of regularity.'
Why doesn't Microsoft make their own "MicroTube" video website, with a download button, no advertising, in the free VP8 format,(maybe also stop threatening with patent lawsuits about that coded) and serve it for free (including oodles of cache space bought from Akamai)?
Customers would flock to this, I'm sure.
You know, I don't think they would. Many users would feel it too uncool to visit a Microsoft property on the web.
Wow. So Microsoft is mad because someone else won't give them details on a closed API?
I don't know if Microsoft is mad, this isn't a story about Microsoft filing a complaint and making a big huff. This is Microsoft putting forth enough effort to do something about it; mad, angry, happy, elated, sad, disgusted or any other emotion that they might be feeling.
Well if they win, then everybody should be able to do anything with the content they access from the net using whatsoever api (http protocol included) no matter what the TOS of the sites are. Or I am missing something...
What you're missing is that Microsoft isn't doing anything they want with the content on the web, because at the time of violation of the TOS, they're not the ones doing it. The user is. So if Microsoft wins, all it means is that anyone is able to create tools which break website TOS's, but it wouldn't mean that anyone would be able to use the tools.
No. What would happen is MS would find out a competitor was making calls to a hidden API so Microsoft would go break it on purpose and issue a patch for their own software.
Or is it possible that since the API wasn't published the Microsoft engineers felt free to improve it, without double checking to see if anyone was using it? Compared to the published API's where they make lots of efforts to maintain backwards compatibility? I find it much more likely that they changed something, because they needed to, and didn't feel the need to maintain back compat because no one should have been using it.
Slashdot Mirror
I use the start menu to lauch almost all my apps, and not by typing. It helps keep my desktop and taskbar clean
Type is faster than hunting with a mouse and losing your flyout because you drifted too far from one side to the other. Make the computer do the searching, not you.
On a different note, why have a clean taskbar? I know I started out thinking the same in Win7, but then I challenged myself on that. I took note of which apps were open 90% of the time, taking up space on the taskbar anyway, and decided to pin them. Now they're easier to launch and it's not like the icons aren't taking up space that they weren't taking up anyway.
What does Windows 8 do for any user without a touchscreen that Windows 7 won't?
Secure Boot. Seriously, if you're worried about someone physically compromising your systems and installing keyloggers, etc. having Secure Boot is a great feature that previous versions of Windows don't have.
I don't know who came up with it or why but it sucks.
Usability experts did. They heard about people complaining about all of the little distractions and lost productivity that was coming from the computing experience and did studies about it. They discovered that people are more productive with only one or two programs showing on the screen at a time. OS creators read the studies and found them to be accurate; so they've implemented what the studies have found. The problem now is that even if we're more productive with one or two windows we either a) don't feel like we're more productive b) don't like it anyway c) like all of the little distractions that make us less productive. There are times in Windows 8 when I'm using the Metro apps, and it feels so close to being on-par productive, but it's not quite there. If they could somehow enforce that all text written to the screen must be copy/pasteable the Metro world might be feasible; but it's not there yet.
Facebook is an american company freedom of speech, even speech we dont like is legal
it is so sad that you actually believe that
Why is it sad?
Why is it okay for the US to sponsor cyber attacks, but not the Iranians? If it is an act of war, then did Congress authorize the US act of war?
The difference is that the US was trying to prevent Iran from getting ahold of weapons/technology that it shouldn't have. Iran is out to destroy existing infrastructure. So the difference is scale. The US says "we'll try to stop X from happening", and Iran says "I'm a bull in a china shop trying to destroy everything".
I'm not sure, but you could have built at least 7000x as many satellites for the cost of the Iraq War. Bonus points for a lot fewer Americans killed.
Unless Saddam attacked the US and all of our weather satellites were helpless to stop him.
The shareholders are already paying tax on that profit in the dividends they get, so I don't really see why they should pay twice.
The reason why is because the money changed hands from one legal entity to another.
If corporations are using the Tax Law in unintended ways, change the law. The rest of us can complain and moan about how the laws are broken. You can actually do something about it. Shaming somebody into not playing by the rules so well, ain't gonna work. If even you get Apple to bring over all of their revenue, and have it taxed without a single loophole/write off, the next corporation will just waltz in and exhibit the bad behavior that you don't like.
then open-sourcing the code might be a nice goodwill gesture.
That also might make it very easy for malware writers to be able to find security holes in it. On the other hand, would malware writers even bother to target something that has such low marketshare?
It's possible that other services aren't willing to invade your personal communications for the purpose of monetization, like Google is.
The IM world is dropping compatibility like flies. What are these companies trying to do?
They're trying to get you to use a client that they can show advertisements on. If you use a client that doesn't provide an ROI for them, why would they want offer up their electricity, spinning disks and the bandwidth of their service to you?
Amazon just hires local surfs to peddle bicycles that power belt-driven fans. When a surf drops, they simply hustle them out and replace them with another. Communities are so glad to have such a huge employer, they look the other way...
Wouldn't those workers be replaced by labor cost saving robots?
Because there are no women on the Internet. Only men pretending to be women.
That may have been true, up until the advent of Pintrist.
DVRs with "skip forward 30 seconds" button are also evil in your book, I take it?
Nope, the user is actively skipping over the parts of the recording; the ads still exist in the stream.
Who said that art and math are mutually exclusive, and why would you believe a person who said that? What part of playing back a video on Youtube do you think is not mathematics at work? Elaborate on your point.
That's kind of the point of patent\copyright laws; Math: not patentable, Art: is patentable.
And then there's my inherent skepticism about the value payoff relative to the level of complexity added, as well as asking isn't that why we have layer 3 protocols? To define networks above and beyond their layer 2 memberships?
What once was old is now new again.
The power of a card as a visual-organization metaphor according to Matias Duarte (lead designer of Android), is that 'it makes very clear the atomic unity of things; it's still flexible while creating a kind of regularity.'
So... they're Live Tiles?
Why doesn't Microsoft make their own "MicroTube" video website, with a download button, no advertising, in the free VP8 format,(maybe also stop threatening with patent lawsuits about that coded) and serve it for free (including oodles of cache space bought from Akamai)? Customers would flock to this, I'm sure.
You know, I don't think they would. Many users would feel it too uncool to visit a Microsoft property on the web.
You should consider leaving your mom's basement more often. Windows Phone is the fastest growing phone OS right now
Going from 1 to 6 users, would make them the fastest growing.
Wow. So Microsoft is mad because someone else won't give them details on a closed API?
I don't know if Microsoft is mad, this isn't a story about Microsoft filing a complaint and making a big huff. This is Microsoft putting forth enough effort to do something about it; mad, angry, happy, elated, sad, disgusted or any other emotion that they might be feeling.
Who's being evil now???
The company that's providing a way to view ad supported content, ad free, is being evil.
Well if they win, then everybody should be able to do anything with the content they access from the net using whatsoever api (http protocol included) no matter what the TOS of the sites are. Or I am missing something...
What you're missing is that Microsoft isn't doing anything they want with the content on the web, because at the time of violation of the TOS, they're not the ones doing it. The user is. So if Microsoft wins, all it means is that anyone is able to create tools which break website TOS's, but it wouldn't mean that anyone would be able to use the tools.
Karma also has no standing with the courts.
What law would Google take MS to court over breaking a TOS?
No. What would happen is MS would find out a competitor was making calls to a hidden API so Microsoft would go break it on purpose and issue a patch for their own software.
Or is it possible that since the API wasn't published the Microsoft engineers felt free to improve it, without double checking to see if anyone was using it? Compared to the published API's where they make lots of efforts to maintain backwards compatibility? I find it much more likely that they changed something, because they needed to, and didn't feel the need to maintain back compat because no one should have been using it.
I wish that people would have an OS that has a simple sandbox keeping software installation tools from installing whatever they want.
As far as I know that's one of the goals of WinRT, and they've seem to have succeeded.